Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I partially reverted the edits of Robynloud to this artice. Although I kept/revised some of the added content, that is useful, most of it was poorly written, in some places direct copy-and-paste/copy-vio that's clearly unacceptable, and in some places unsourced or sourced with an unreliable source like the user-generated content cited from a user review at http://musicmp3.ru. Much of his revision read like a press release (even if you're citing a press release, things like this are not encyclopedic: "Amazon spoke on how Fiona had crossed many bridges to arrive at The MF Life. Conceptual bridges. Spiritual bridges. Actual bridges. Stadium-thumpin' bridges. Hard-lovin' emotional bridges.") and terms that are to be avoided (WP:MOS/Words to watch) like peacock and weasel terms. Also, unnecessary subheader changes, MOS issues, an unsourced release history section, and undue weight given to a Melanie Fiona quote that adds little encyclopedic value to the album's background. Comments? Dan56 (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Feedback It's clear that many of these reversions by Dan56 are in keeping with policy and guidelines on Wikipedia. I'm neutral on this quotation, but it's clear that (e.g.) non-professional reviews don't belong. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
